Catholic Church Pagan? Help please

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matt_g18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yea so i was talking to her more and basically she really got into the sola scriptura thing and that since the 7 deuterocanon books arent in her NKJ bible its not scripture.

Also she is really into videos and she constantly talks about this one that shows teh differences in all the bibles and how the protestant bible is right. THe guys last name starts with a W i think.

And yea she wont go onto a catholic forum because she thinks its baised to the faith.
Show her a Bible printed before the Reformation in the 16th century. Bibles before this time had the 7 deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, I & Maccabees) that are excluded from Protestant Bibles.

Here is an online version of the Gutenberg Bible from 1455 AD. You can look at the books included in this Bible. All 7 deuterocanonical books are there. (Note: Ecclesiasticus is another name for Sirach)
hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/permanent/gutenberg/web/pgstns/01.html

She still might not be sold on the Catholic Church, but at least she can’t keep repeating this common lie.
 
First of all, I recommend reading “Chariots of the Gods” by Erich Von Dannikin.

Von Dannikin, who was several bricks shy of a load, wrote this book to prove Earth was populated by “ancient astronauts.” I advise reading this silly book to study the techniques he used – because many fundamentalists use exactly the same techniques.

In one example, he takes a photo of a Mayan Stele, a stone with many carvings on it. One carving shows a crouching warrior in full regalia. Von Dannikin crops this photo to show only the warrior, then turns it 90 degrees, so the warrior appears to be looking up. He prints it next to a picture of an astronaut in a space capsule, and says the Mayans were showing us a carving of an ancient astronaut!

Now note the techniques:
  1. He picks and chooses his evidence. The earth was populated long before the Mayans appeared (after the time of Christ.) How a Mayan would know more than, say a Greek or Roman is not explained – but they had the right carving.
  2. He manipulates the evidence – the warrior is shown crouching, not reclining for takeoff. But he turns the photograph to make it look that way.
  3. He dramatically restricts your access to information. The photo is cropped so you can’t see what else is on the stele. He doesn’t tell you we know all about this warrior – the Mayans could write and we can read their writing.
  4. He tries to overwhelm you – there are many examples like this in the book, and he keeps piling them on, so you don’t have time to refute each and every one in detail.
  5. He tries to shift the burden of proof, demanding you explain the things he presents if you think he’s wrong (but see point 3 and 4 above.)
To deal with these techniques, first select one point or claim and investigate it thoroughly. If a Bible verse is offered as proof, go and read not only that verse, but the whole book . Do not allow them to overwhelm you – stick on the one point until you settle it, then move onto the next. In a short time you will be able to say, “You were dead wrong on the first three points, so why should I continue this charade?”

Remember, the burden of proof is on the one advancing the claim – they have to prove their point, you don’t have to disprove it.

Now in this particular case, the pastor you say rejects the eucharist. Have him prove Jesus was wrong when He instituted the eucharist. If he can’t do that, the rest of his argument is not worth considering.
 
Janet Thank you so much!

That online copy of the Guthenburg bible is exactly what i need!

She said she is very against the church adding/removing books from the bible and that is exactly what i needed. And i figured all hope is not lost because she told me she doesnt mind going to a catholic mass she just thinks that a lot of what teh church believes in is wrong.

One thing is that before i met her i wasnt really into my faith. I didnt research and read anything and now i know so much more about our faith. God truely works in mysterious ways.

God Bless
Matt
 
Janet Thank you so much!

One thing is that before i met her i wasnt really into my faith. I didnt research and read anything and now i know so much more about our faith. God truely works in mysterious ways.

God Bless
Matt
Matt, I am so happy I could help you. God truly does work in mysterious ways. After this experience, you will realize what a treasure your Catholic faith is.

God bless you.

Janet
 
When I go to mass I NEVER hear the priest attack any other faith.
I’m not going to lie, you havn’t been to all the masses, there are masses on youtube of priest openly condeming Pagans and other minorites. Look at the USA, they are not very happy with the Muslims right now.
 
Janet Thank you so much!

That online copy of the Guthenburg bible is exactly what i need!

She said she is very against the church adding/removing books from the bible and that is exactly what i needed. And i figured all hope is not lost because she told me she doesnt mind going to a catholic mass she just thinks that a lot of what teh church believes in is wrong.

One thing is that before i met her i wasnt really into my faith. I didnt research and read anything and now i know so much more about our faith. God truely works in mysterious ways.

God Bless
Matt
Take if from a guy who is married to a Luthern girl, God uses mixed relationships to 1) Strenghten the faith of the Catholic and 2) Introduce all of the positive things about Catholicism to the non-Catholics family.

Hang in there. Keep learning your faith. Answer her questions with kindness and detail.
 
I’m not going to lie, you havn’t been to all the masses, there are masses on youtube of priest openly condeming Pagans and other minorites. Look at the USA, they are not very happy with the Muslims right now.
The USA does not represent the Catholic Church. My church doesn’t condemn pagans at any Mass I’ve heard, however we do not agree with paganism.
 
I have never heard a fundamentalist call himself a “Gallican Catholic,” but I’m sure it’s the standard fantasy reconstruction of the early Middle Ages, in which there were “true Christians” who kept the faith untainted (for instance, the Frankish “Gallican”] Church under Charlemagne had a synod that criticised the veneration of images–Calvin made use of this and this may be one of the things this guy is relying on). The “Gallican Church” some other posters have found on the Internet is also clearly a modern reconstruction of the early medieval Gallican Church, but at least they pay some attention to what it was really like. “Gallican” in this context is the name of a missal rather than a Church–it was a liturgical Rite of the early medieval Western Church, eventually absorbed into the Roman Rite. N.B. the “Gallican Orthodox Catholic Church” or whatever is a small group not in communion with either the Orthodox or Catholic Churches (usually any church with a long name ending “Orthodox Catholic” is basically a bunch of wacky people in vestments who are trying to recreate what they think the Orthodox and/or Catholic Church should look like–there are a bunch of such tiny churches and they are no more Orthodox than they are Catholic). There was also an early modern “Gallicanism” which was a political movement within French Catholicism–I don’t think that has anything to do with this pastor.

Anyway, the point is that he’s creating a fantasy history to give himself credibility. There is a long pedigree of this–I was brought up with a lot of this stuff and I could go into it if you wanted me to (E. H. Broadbent’s The Pilgrim Church is one of the relatively saner statements of this position). I’ve never heard the term “Gallican” but it sounds like one more variation on an old theme–find any group in Church history that looks like it was resisting Rome in some way and claim it as your ancestor (actually the early medieval Gallic Church–as opposed to the early modern Gallicans–was not anti-Roman as far as I know; the synod under Charlemagne did take a certain independent stance over against the Pope but I don’t think it ever led to real conflict). It’s a load of nonsense. I’d be happy to debunk it further if you gave me more details, but with what I’ve got it would be pure speculation based on what I know about early medieval Catholicism.

As for the pagan charge–sure Catholicism is pagan (by some definitions–i.e., many rituals and customs come from pagan origins). What’s wrong with that? You have to make him define “pagan” and not just use it as a vague insult. Pin him down to the specific stuff that is allegedly pagan and make him show how it is wrong. Don’t let him use guilt by association. Just because pagans did something doesn’t make it bad. If he doesn’t like that principle, that’s his problem.

Sad to say, analytical thinking of that sort is alien to a lot of people. 😦 If a church - any church - does or says or believes or uses something that can be seen as a thing that is condemned in the Bible, that’s often enough to prove that the church in question is “pagan”.​

Some people’s principle is simply that “the Bible says it” - that’s how the JWs find Christmas trees in Jeremiah 10. Pointing out that Jeremiah could not possibly have been talking about Christmas trees, & was talking about the cult practices of his own time, cuts no ice - perhaps it is perceived as diminishing his prophetic status. After all, God can tell an OT prophet about Christmas trees belonging to ages in the far future. Result - the supernatural character of the Bible is vindicated yet again.

If this is correct, there is probably far more at stake than defining one’s terms, desirable as we might find it.
For instance, sacrifice is clearly a pagan custom. Ancient Near Eastern pagans sacrificed all the time. Does that mean that the OT sacrifices were pagan? In a sense, sure. But not in a sense that discredits them. Don’t try to defend Catholicism on his terms. His terms are wrong from the start.

As for the persecutions with which the Catholic Church has been involved–well, some of that is true. But he is almost certainly relying on wildly inflated figures and has no understanding of the historical context. He will probably tell you that the Catholic Church killed millions and millions of people in the Middle Ages–this is just nonsense and no historian believes this no matter what their ideology. For what it’s worth, it’s also historically accurate to point out that it was always the state executing people. Until about the 12th century the Church generally tried to hold the government back. After that point the Church came increasingly to sanction and even encourage persecution, which is indeed a shame and disgrace in my opinion. But it was always the Church handing people over to the state (not that this gets them off the hook). The state persecuted heresy in order to preserve civil order, and the Church saw this as perfectly natural and right. Still, the fact is that generally church courts took far more care to protect the innocent and to give people a chance of repentance than the secular courts did.
 
I was banned from a certain board (rhymes with “harm”) just for saying I was Catholic. They banned me without letting me post one thing!
There are many Catholics who are on that forum. Some with many posts to their name.
 
There are many Catholics who are on that forum. Some with many posts to their name.
And some of us who will not post there because of the nature of that forum’s moderation.

There is one small n-C forum that I post on and it belongs to my friend SinginBeauty.

I don’t think you’ll run across an n-C with a better heart than hers. Nice lady. I think she’d like to have some more of us over there if we have the time. The forum is all about Christian Unity.
 
This post was taken from a thread on the Bible being forbidden in the Middle Ages. It seemed to be straying off that topic.
Old_Scholar said:
It also speaks of the paganism in the church and I have addressed the point several times already about that being started by Constantine who first declared Christianity the official religion of Rome but kept many pagan rituals in place in order to keep the public happy. He was most responsible for introducing them and the RCC has kept them in place for all these centuries. The one most daring is the majesty of Mary as taught by the church—pure paganism.
Then several times today you have already been in error, OS. Constantine only legalized Christianity, but did not state it was required. He proclaimed that it was to be tolerated (adherants not put to death). Of course there were many Pagan beliefs still in existance at tthat time, and much of the public was happy with them. Why is that Constantine’s fault? COnstantine was in NO WAY responsible for introducing any of them. He had no control over Church Doctrine. Also, at the time, the “Roman” Rite did not yet exist as a separate entity from other Catholic Rites.

I agree that the majesty of Mary is daring. I think Jesus dared a lot with HIs Blessed Mother!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top